DeCSS' Continuing Saga 226
blankmange writes "Newsbytes is carrying
a followup on the DeCSS and 2600's court cases: "The Electronic Frontier Foundation and the First Amendment Project today asked the California Supreme Court to uphold a lower court's decision to permit publication of the source code for DeCSS technology, which circumvents digital copy protection systems." Maybe it's not over yet..."
but its stull sux (Score:1, Insightful)
its all about the information... the people need to know, or we'll always lose...
Re:but its stull sux (Score:2, Insightful)
More importantly, the people need to CARE. The People don't care because this does not concern them (in their eyes). The People can still watch their DVDs, so why should they care if a few people can't copy DVDs?
Re:but its stull sux (Score:5, Insightful)
That is the problem, and by calling it an issue of DVD copying you further the problem. This is not an issue of being able to copy DVDs or to post code. This is an issue of linking to someone that posts code. The next step is to stop someone from talking about DeCSS. Soon, if there is a crime, the TV news cannot report on the crime -- hearing about the crime might enable someone to commit the crime.
Re:but its stull sux (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting point. Warning, this is not a troll, this is a legit question that I think is a good analogy here. If sorehands is correct, lets say I have a website that has a link to some kiddie porn. Now I don't host the porn myself, I just knowingly have a link to it. Now is my linking to it illegal? If my site were a kiddie porn search engine, would it make it any more legal since I only provide a service. More interestingly, if my site were a site for parents so they could have a list of kiddie porn sites to say add to their nanny filters, would _that_ be illegal. Does the intent of my site make a difference since the link is there all the same?
One thing I do have a beef about, and that's people who use the "give'em an inch and they'll take a mile" mentality. "the TV news cannot report on the crime", yeah, right. And soon even mentioning crime would be illegal, heck even muttering the word will get you thrown in the slam. Sorry, had to have my little rant there.
Re:but its stull sux (Score:2, Insightful)
If you want to hold someone responsible for breaking laws, go after the person who actually broke the law. I swear, this crap is just another example of how in the United States, we have this need to displace responsibility for a person's actions. A.k.a. the land of the lawsuit.
In this particular type of case, it seems like such an easy line to draw. If anything, the people who are linking to such information are providing a service to the people who want it shut down. The more linking there is, the easier it is to find who they're looking for and go after her.
I won't speak to the legitimacy of actually hosting this data. That's another question entirely. But linking to it? There should be no question about the legitimacy of that.
Re:but its stull sux (Score:2)
Linked content can change without your knowing (Score:2)
Judges have no freakin' clue how dynamic the WWW is.
Re:Linked content can change without your knowing (Score:3, Insightful)
This is just yet another part of the problem of people not understanding linking in general (and one that I'll admit I hadn't thought of in those terms).
I guess the concept of what a URL really is (the difference between information as to the location of a document and the document itself) is just "too technical". Given that what a user sees in a browser is a blue, underlined title (which they've been trained to recognize as something they are supposed to click on) on your web page "turning into" the other document, how could they not think of your page as containing that document?
Is it that they can't comprehend that "All that's actually there is the equivalent of a library card-reference, or an ISBN number, and when you click it, you're asking your computer to use that information, find the other document, and display it in place of this one."? That's the best way I've come up with to word it, but I still see a lot of glazed-over eyes.
But wait -- lawyers and judges (aside from being pretty smart fellas in general, jokes about them notwithstanding) have their own system of references to legal texts. They fully understand how the inclusion in a brief of a reference to a piece of case law, or a section of a statute, or whatever, is equivalent to, but not the same as, attaching a copy of that text, because they know that the reader will (a) understand the conventions used and (b) have access to a law library where they can look it up. Is the connection so hard to make?
Maybe they (back to people in general, not just lawyers and judges) do understand that part, for what it's worth, but just don't see what's so important about it -- maybe the funny looks are not so much "What are you talking about?" as "So what's the big deal?"
The thing is, the whole power of hypertext -- fundamentally, what makes the web so revolutionary -- is precisely the fact that it blurs the line between reference and content. In a world where everyone has at his disposal armies of little gnomes who can, in a matter of seconds and at marginal cost, dash off to the Library of Congress, get a copy of a book, and bring it back to you, whenever you merely give them a reference number, giving someone such a number really is in a sense "equivalent" to giving them a copy of the book.
This does lead to legal issues -- in this case, it's the legality of the linked-to content and the linker's liability therefor; in other cases like deep-linking of articles and images, it's the copyright status of that content. In either case, the response to the conflict depends on one's assumptions and priorities.
Should the policy be: "Well, since we obviously can't restrict mere linking, for freedom-of-speech reasons, and since linking is in a sense equivalent to dissemination, I guess that (to that extent) we can't restrict dissemination either, and if copyright interests suffer, too bad."?
Or should it be: "Well, since we obviously can't allow free dissemination, for copyright reasons, and since linking is in a sense equivalent to dissemination, I guess that (to that extent) we can't allow free linking either, and if freedom of speech suffers, too bad."?
Re:Soon???? (Score:2)
Re:but its stull sux (Score:2)
In the SOF case, did they "knowingly" publish the ad, i.e. was it reviewed by editors, was it "endorsed" by the magazine. Or was it just a classified kind of thing? Generally speaking, if they knew the ad existed, and the ad was for "hitman" services, this goes to what responsibility a publication has to monitor any potential illegal activity through it's publication. Again, if the ad were for child porn, should it not be considered illegal for them to knowingly carry the ad (assuming they did know).
Re:but its stull sux (Score:2)
Re:but its stull sux (Score:3, Insightful)
Free speach doesn't mean the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
Disseminating some information is actually harmful to others (for example, a web page of credit card numbers). The harm caused by the dissemination must be considered.
In the SOF case, there's a secondary consideration, after determining that the ad was harmful information, and that the harm was sufficient to warrent not printing it, then you need to prove that SOF knew (or should have known) that the ad was harmful, and printed it anyway.
-- this is not a
Not about copying DVDs (Score:2)
Re:but its stull sux (Score:2)
But for what purpose are you trying to copy the dvd. Only two legit ones come to mind, format shifting and backups (actually a third one also comes to mind, and that's to make an addtional copy for our minivan since it has a dvd player as well). All the publishers have to do is to provide a way to cheaply (i.e. free/
So, other than "just cuz", can you come up with any other compelling reasons why a person would need to be able to copy their dvd's? And if not, why is the industries attempts to prevent people from doing so such a dastardly thing?
Re:but its stull sux (Score:3, Informative)
Will this kill Slashdot? (Score:5, Informative)
typedef unsigned int uint;
char ctb[512]="33733b2663236b763e7e362b6e2e667bd393db0
69b57175f82c787cf125a1a52
d2d65743c7c34256c2c6
081c888c011d797df024
3f3bba6e3a3ebf6befeb
1f0b8f8b0a1e8a8e0f15
cace4f53979312069296
typedef unsigned char uchar;uint tb0[11]={5,0,1,2,3,4,0,1,2,3,4};uchar* F=NULL;
uint lf0,lf1,out;void ReadKey(uchar* key){int i;char hst[3]; hst[2]=0;if(F==\
NULL){F=malloc(256);for(i=0;i>2
>>12)^(lf1>>20)^(lf1>>21)^(lf1&g t;>24))lf0=(lf0>1)\
|(a>1)|(b>8)+x+y;} void \
CSSdescramble(uchar *sec,uchar *key){uint i;uchar *end=sec+0x800;uchar KEY[5];
for(i=0;i=0;\
i--)key[tb0[i+1]]=k[tb0[i
(uchar *key,uchar *im){uchar k[5];int i;ReadKey(im);for(i=0;i=0;i--)key[tb0[i+1]]=k[tb0
[tb0[i]];}void CSSdecrypttitlekey(uchar *tkey,uchar *dkey){int i;uchar im1[6];
uchar im2[6]={0x51,0x67,0x67,0xc5,0xe0,0x00};for(i=0;i6
CSStitlekey1(im1,im2);CSStit
Re:Will this kill Slashdot? (Score:1)
Re:Will this kill Slashdot? (Score:4, Informative)
#!/usr/bin/local/perl
s''$/=\2048;while(<>){G=
b=map{ord qB8,unqb8,qT,_^$a[--D]}@INC;s/...$/1$&/;Q=unqV , b25,_;H=73;O=$b[4]<<9
|256|$b[3];Q=Q>>8^(P=(E=25
^S*8^S<<6))<<9,_=(map{U=_%16orE^
^=(72,
)+=P+(~F&E))for@
Re: 7 lines of Perl! (Score:1)
Re:Will this kill Slashdot? (Score:4, Insightful)
while( )
...etc...
{ G = 29;
R = 142;
is no more amount of code than: while(){G=29;R=142;...etc...
They both have the exact same grammar, and use the same number of tokens. They both take just as long to execute, but the more compact version takes more time for a human being to read. What is it about Perl that tends to make its proponets enjoy making write-only code?
Re:Will this kill Slashdot? (Score:3, Funny)
They're frustrated APL [chilton.com] wanna-bes?
APL.... (Score:2)
One nice thing about APL is that a piece of tight APL code is equally incomprehensible in any human language.
Re:Will this kill Slashdot? (Score:2)
Re:Will this kill Slashdot? (Score:5, Interesting)
*wink wink, nudge nudge*
Wouldn't it be a pity if some wretched soul were to send out a virus whose sole purpose was to leave a copy of DeCSS in every computer it touched? Maybe buried 12 folders deep in some random spot on half the world's Windows boxes...
The MPAA's own servers hosting a pop-up ad with the minimal Perl script showing up every now and then...
Seems to me the "troublemakers" in our midst have been laying down on the job...so let's get going, boyos and girlos!
Re:Will this kill Slashdot? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Will this kill Slashdot? (Score:1)
slashcode saves the day! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Will this kill Slashdot? (Score:2)
Now that it's out in the open, anything that would make that code usefull for defeating CSS would be illegal.
It will be hard to continue working as a software writer now that C compilers are illegal. But, I guess I'll just have to make do...
2600 (Score:1, Informative)
Mixed speech and content (Score:5, Funny)
In the brief, the DVD CCA argued that, "neither DeCSS nor Bunner's posting of it on the Internet is pure speech." Instead, the group said, courts have treated computer code as "nonspeech" or "mixed speech and content."
All you l33t h4x0rz out there think you're entitled to free speech. That's just fine and dandy with the MPAA. Just remember that you're not allowed to put content into your speech without a license.
Re:Mixed speech and content (Score:3, Funny)
the saving coup de grace (Score:3, Interesting)
As of last week, this was too close to call. Now the DMCA doesn't have a chance.
Thank you, Sony, for the copy protection scheme that outlawed the sharpie! Humanity can not thank you enough for the amount of wasted time you've saved. Somewhere on Sony's recently pensioned retirement roles I just know there is some Japanese engineer chuckling silently to himself. Too bad he can't tell his countrymen how he saved the U.S. from the corporate media monopolies.
Re:the saving coup de grace (Score:2)
Re:Mixed speech and content (Score:2)
Of course not, because then they wouldn't be able to control all content.
Re:Mixed speech and content (Score:2)
Typedef an unsigned int as uint.
Next, define a 512 byte static character array containing the following characters:
"33733b2663236b763e7e362b6e2e667bd39
69b57175f82c787cf125a1a52
d2d65743c7c34256c2c6
081c888c011d797df024
3f3bba6e3a3ebf6befeb
1f0b8f8b0a1e8a8e0f15
cace4f53979312069296
Next, typedef an unsigned char as a uchar.
Now declare an array of uint, 11 elements long with the values {5,0,1,2,3,4,0,1,2,3,4};
Next define a pointer to a uchar F and default the value to NULL.
Define three variables of type uint: lf0, lf1, out.
Declare a function ReadKey that takes as a parameter a pointer to a uchar named key and returns nothing (void).
Write the body of the function as follows:
Declare i as type integer.
Declare hst as a 3 byte character array.
Assign 0 to the value of hst at index 2.
If F is NULL, then allocate 256 bytes to F.
Now loop
You get the picture. Would this be illegal? Or speech. Looks like speech to me!
Recipe for destruction?
Re:Mixed speech and content (Score:2)
To further obscure the issue of is-code-speech? check out my first article [slashdot.org] submitted to slashdot.
This is a DISASTER! (Score:5, Funny)
Damn, if they make DeCSS legal, my ownership of a T-Shirt with the DeCSS code written on it will be completely meaningless!
Let's hope that the lower court's decision is quashed.
Re:This is a DISASTER! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:This is a DISASTER! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:This is a DISASTER! (Score:1)
Ideally you'd get both, but which is arguably the "most illicit"?
Re:This is a DISASTER! (Score:3, Funny)
Question is, do I get the one with the main source or the one with the decryption tables?
Ideally you'd get both, but which is arguably the "most illicit"?
Hell, forget illicit, wear whichever one looks cooler.
Sometime we nerds have to compromise our principles in the interests of possibly, at some point, getting some.
Re:This is a DISASTER! (Score:1)
Re:This is a DISASTER! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:This is a DISASTER! (Score:1)
Let's hope that the lower court's decision is quashed.
Quick! Get an affadavit certifying that this shirt exists on today's date. Then, you'll have a quaint collector's item! A once illegal T-Shirt.
Re:This is a DISASTER! (Score:2)
btw, I have a couple of them left I purchased just before the sale was suspended from thinkgeek. I have these for sale. send me an email and we will talk.
"Hey!... psssst!... kid!... you wanna buy a T-shirt?"
It's on tshirts, bumper stickers, why not sigs (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's on tshirts, bumper stickers, why not sigs (Score:1)
I'm trying to figure out why the MPAA is still pushing the issue. I may not have even heard of DeCSS if not for this case and it's certainly encouraging more and more people to distribute it than had the MPAA not bothered with it.
Then again, Jack Valenti thinks he can have anyone he wants thrown in jail. The man deserves to be set on fire.
RE:Jack Valenti deserves to be set on fire. (Score:2, Funny)
I bet if you put that on pay per view it'd be the biggest grossing event of all time........
Not to mention with all the backbiting etc the goes on in hollywierd, that would probably be the biggest paying audience.
Re:Jack Valenti deserves to be set on fire. (Score:2)
Story not about 2600 (Score:5, Informative)
The 2600 case was in federal court in New York. They lost the trial, and were also shot down by the federal appeals court.
Re:Story not about 2600 (Score:2)
Yes, but there is a pretty important legal link
From the NewsBytes article [newsbytes.com]:
Attorneys for the DVD CCA declined to comment on today's filing. When the group filed its appeal two months ago, it said a November 2001 ruling in New York supports its assertion that the First Amendment was not intended to block courts from preventing the illegal distribution of a program that improperly uses DVD CCA's trade secrets.
IANAL but it seems to me that this courts eventual ruling will have important implications for any further action the 2600 crew decide to take.
Re:Story not about 2600 (Score:3, Informative)
The other point that is interesting is that the damn DVD CCA claims the secrets were stolen. No -they were reverse engineered. There is a BIG difference! That little point seems to be lost in the shuffle.
Stolen implies someone walked into a vendor that had the secret and swipped it some how. Taint the case. A teenager working on his computer at home worked it out. Hmm - doesn't that make it not a trade secret anymore?????
Re:Story not about 2600 (Score:2, Insightful)
This is more like disassembling and tracing and documenting the code, which I am quite sure is against the license for Xing's (and many other companies') products. Even if DeCSS was "reverse-engineered" from this purloined key, it would not really be reverse-engineered because of the method that the key was obtained from.
As for the the DVD CCA's claim that it is a trade secret, as long as those who were involved with the documentation of DeCSS were not in any way responsible for the safekeeping of the code owned by the DVD CCA (like if they were DVD CCA employees, or employees working on a DVD implementation for a DVD CCA licensee), then there's no trade secret violation. Much as the same as if I "discovered" the formula for Coca-Cola(TM) by kitchen experimentation and posted it on Slashdot.
The only gripe the DVD CCA should have here is the way Xing implemented their decryption method. Since Xing was bought by Real, now it should be Real's legal problem.
Stupid!! Our words have been used against us. (Score:2)
As pointed out by Seth Finkelstein [sethf.com] in comments a few days ago [slashdot.org] (and another comment) [slashdot.org]
Comments, like this one, are ripe for quotes to be taken out of context. ARE BEING USED IN TESTIMONY FOR THE MPAA [harvard.edu]. Why give them bullets to shoot us with? Especially bullets that are inapplicable. (And you gave a great quote that can be taken out of context: ``Even if DeCSS was "reverse-engineered" from this purloined key, it would not really be reverse-engineered because of the method that the key was obtained from.
There are no Miranda rights. Anything said on slashdot is being held as an opinion of our community. What is said is being held against 2600, me, and the ideals EFF stands for. Our community isn't homogeneous, but what you say in the future may be used against me, personally, [slashdot.org] because the views you espouse will be put into our mouths, purportedly proving that we knew what we were doing was illegal [harvard.edu], which it isn't.
Either reverse engineering is legal or it isn't. If it is, then, I don't know what the legal implications may be. (Reverse engineering being classified as illegal would be such a radical departure, I can't envision it. But if you feel it is, ignore what I have to say below which rests on the assumption that a shrink/click-wrap prohibition on reverse engineering sold goods is legal.)
Assuming reverse engineering is legal, any trade secret derived from Xing's player loses its protected status. IE, anything learned from Xing's player, including the algorithms and keys it uses are now public. Remember, trade secret protections are designed prevent ill-gotten gains from industrial espionage. Which is why they don't apply if they, for example, accidently publish the trade secret, or it gets reverse engineered, thats legitimate.
Anyhoo.. Next time, please be a little more careful in what you say, and how it may be misquoted. Actually, this applies to everyone.
Re:Story not about 2600 (Score:2)
The federal (2600/NY) case was brought under the big bad DMCA anticircumvention laws. Since these laws are pretty new, were mostly untested, and are so vague that they can arguably be applied to almost anything, this case caused a lot more concern about the stretching boundaries of copyright.
The California case is not brought under the DMCA; it was brought under state trade-secret laws. These laws aren't new, are better understood, and their limits are better defined. The other issues (jurisdiction and free-speech conflicts) are also a lot less murky than the DMCA. So while this case is still a big cause for concern, it's not about ever-expanding copyright law or the DMCA. It's more about Big Media smacking programmers with a bag of lawyers, whether or not the law backs them up.
It definitely isn't over... (Score:1)
At least not until a third-party DVD player becomes available for Linux for free (yeah right), although this will only put the real problem here on hold.
security? we don' need no stinkin' security!
Re:It definitely isn't over... (Score:2, Informative)
things are only getting worse... (Score:2, Interesting)
The irony in this is funny, but it is plain to see that this trend will just keep continuing.
Re:things are only getting worse... (Score:2)
That [google.com] is [routers.com] bullshit [google.com]. I hope you're not a Republican; you're making them look like liars.
Re:things are only getting worse... (Score:2)
Your comment would have made satirical sense had it been about Hollings or Hatch, but I've not seen Daschle express any view at all about the content industry's attempt to legislate away the tech industry (if you have, please point me to it.) I assure you in any case that the assault on our freedom is a bipartisan effort [vote-smart.org].
Of course, I've taken your words seriously and presented my views honestly, and so IHBT. IHL. So be it. HTH.
Re:things are only getting worse... (Score:2)
Excellent point (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, since when did the ??AA's become more powerful or important than national security? Who put them on their pedestal? Who died and gave them the monarchy?
Just shows you where this country's priorities are. Trading freedom for security is bad enough. Trading freedom for entertainment is disgusting.
Re:Excellent point (Score:2)
That would be democracy.
Kill in the whitehouse, by big business, with the bag-full-o-money.
I'm sorry, you lose.
To play again, please rewind to 1776.
proof that DMCA is ambiguous.... (Score:5, Insightful)
in CA, Brunner was told he was allowed to keep it up.
Anyone catch that? Two similar if not identical cases have different rulings based on the same law.
Questions --
Have there been other sets of cases that have had the same law interpreted in two different directions? What was the outcome? Are such laws considered ambiguous and thus in need of clarification? Who makes taht decision?
Re:proof that DMCA is ambiguous.... (Score:4, Informative)
This is generally one of the situations in which the Supreme Court will step in, that is, if two states rule differently on a federal law, it is up to no one but the Supreme Court to sort it out.
The Supreme Court only accepts a small percentage of the cases they are asked to hear, but then again generally the states follow each other's precident.
Re:proof that DMCA is ambiguous.... (Score:1)
Re:proof that DMCA is ambiguous.... (Score:2)
Re:proof that DMCA is ambiguous.... (Score:3, Informative)
Based on the same law? I don't think so. The NY case was about DMCA. The CA case is about trade secrets.
Not stolen secret! (Score:4, Insightful)
This secret was not stolen, it was reverse-engineered! Their argument is bullsh**.
Re:Not stolen secret! (Score:2, Informative)
Trade secret, let out by mistake = no trade secret.
Re:Not stolen secret! (Score:3, Informative)
Remember that is was obtained by looking through unencrypted code in the Xing player.
The guy who wrote it even admited that an anonymous source led him to the Xing player to look for the one key to break. After that, the rest of the manufacturer keys were cracked with ease.
If it had been a clean room reverse, then they would have more of a leg to stand on.
Mainstream waking up about the DMCA (Score:2)
While everyone was discussing the tautology of newspapers, including the Wash. Post being full of shit...
The report from Mitre Corp. discussed in Thursday's thread [slashdot.org] on the Washington Post's article contained one very interesting point regarding Assuring the Safety and Security of COTS Software Products [mitre.org] very relevant to the DMCA:
So ideally, the government needs to be able to either read the source (i.e. some form of Open Source) or be able to reverse engineer the product (i.e. no DMCA). Obviously the former is more efficient. Either way brings attention to the practical problems caused by the DMCA.Awareness of the DMCA is creeping in to more trade journals. The February 2002 issue of Scientific Computing & Instrumentation [scimag.com] features a special report on the DMCA [scimag.com] (page 54 of the dead tree version):
The 1700's saw a serious of protections from governmental abuses, it looks like the 2000's will see a series of protections against similar corporate abuses. It'll happen sooner than later if Europe decides to learn from the U.S.'s mistakes this time rather than emulated them.
Abe had it right... (Score:5, Insightful)
-Abraham Lincoln
Re:Abe had it right... (Score:2)
speech to Illinois legislature, Jan. 1837.
See Vol. 1, p. 24 of Lincoln's Complete Works,
ed. by Nicolay and Hay, 1905)
No matter how they twist it, it is speech. (Score:5, Insightful)
This "trade secret" was NOT stolen. No one hacked into anybody's computer or broke into anyone's office to steal anything. The encryption technique was reverse engineered which IS legal. Discussing the reverse engineering process and ones findings with others IS legal and protected by the first amendment.
Great thought...maybe the real fight is elsewhere (Score:3, Interesting)
How can it be a trade secret if every DVD manufacturer knows it?? Isn't a trade secret is something makes one company more competetive than others in the same or similar field. Even www.dictionary.com [dictionary.com] (via American Heritage) defines a trade secret as: What is it about the DVD encryption algorithm that gives DVD manufacturers a competitive advantage over, say putting a movie on video tape? If I learn the secret formula for Pepsi, I can make all the Pepsi I want for my own use, and there isn't a damn thing Pepsico can do. But I probably couldn't market a similar brand without paying fees. Isn't using the DeCSS algorithm the same thing?
Now, if I found a secret to making a DVD with less costs or faster, that would be a trade secret. Or if I found a way to improve the quality of the image or put more data on the disk, that would be a trade secret. That is, until everyone found out about it. Then it becomes common knowlege.
Maybe we are fighting this, and other things like DCMA, the wrong way. Maybe it is time to bring unfair trade practice laws to bear and be the plaintiff for a change.
The disadvantage of being a monopoly is you have to play even fairer. Well, maybe in theory anyway.
Re:Great thought...maybe the real fight is elsewhe (Score:5, Informative)
It's a trade secret of an organization called the "DVD Copy Control Association" - or, the DVDCCA.
They license the trade secret to all of the player manufacturers, and in return, the player manufacturers sign a contract that, among other things, forbids them from building DVD players with unencrypted digital outputs, and requires them to include Macrovision distortion in the analog output signal. The contract also forbids the disclosure of the CSS algorithm.
The result is that, prior to DeCSS, if you wanted to manufacture DVD players, you needed to sign the contract and agree to the terms in order to obtain the necessary technology to decode DVDs.
Now, the CSS algorithm is cracked.
The danger that the industry is facing is this. If CSS is deemed, by the courts, to be a legitimately reverse-engineered trade secret, then the CSS decoding process would enter the public domain. If that were to happen, it would clear the way for the manufacture of DVDs without having to obey the restrictions of the CSS contract.
In other words, it would allow companies to start manufacturing DVD players with such desirable features as no Macrovision, and digital MPEG outputs. But it wouldn't allow all companies to do so
... only those companies that had not signed a contract with the DVDCAA. In other words, the entire current player industry would be shut out -- they would be still required, by their DVDCCA contracts, to install Macrovision, and not offer digital outputs. This would be a disaster for the current crop of player manufacturers.
There's a reason that they are fighting so hard to force CSS into the category of "stolen trade secret" -- by sheer force of will, apparently. If DeCSS were to be ruled a stolen trade secret, then the courts would prevent anyone else from making commercial use of the algorithm.
This would be an incredible win for the movie industry -- they would receive what would be in effect a perpetual patent -- the right to exclude others from employing a process.
Note that they are fighting this battle on different fronts -- the DMCA case is to try and outlaw the dissemination of the algorithm. The Trade Secret case is to try and outlaw the implementation of the algorithm. They are fighting tooth and nail to control not the right to manufacture DVD players, but the right to dictate what features may and may not be included in DVD players.
Re:Great thought...maybe the real fight is elsewhe (Score:2)
Free Speech > Financial welfare of any company/industry
Sorry the companies made a bad deal, but it isn't my problem and it isn't 2600's problem. It was reverse-engineered; no one is disputing this. It was poorly conceived, and now several companies will suffer for it. Better luck next time, but this is capitalism - the government isn't supposed to save your ass when you screw up. Take a look at Enron if you doubt me, or any other business that has ever gone under. Just because you're a large industry with alot of money doesn't mean you get to circumvent all of society because you banked on a flawed technology. If code is not free speech, and can be a trade secret, then I'm going to start a company that does nothing but encode famous speeches and quotes into c, and then have protection granted to them as my trade secret.
Just in case the original gets slashdotted... (Score:2, Informative)
Idea for ThinkGeek... (Score:5, Funny)
I don't condone piracy... (Score:3, Insightful)
I understand why the MPAA wants to protect its intellectual property, but they need to fight piracy by either making the factory-made products worth buying or prosecute those individuals who pirate them. I want to be able to rip a VOB and play it back on my laptop without having to break the law in the process. I think that the MPAA would rather strip millions of legitimate users of their rights to fair use, rather than spend the money to fight a few individuals who are massively distributing illegal copies of a copyrighted product.
Correct me if I'm wrong.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Hasn't DeCSS already experience wide spread disclosure. This is kind of like closing the barn door after the horse has left the building.
It is the RIAA/MPAA that are becoming powerless...
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong.. (Score:2)
The DVDCCA have a point (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, if you have 400 trade secrets, and you burn them all onto a shiny metal disk, and you sell 20 million copies of that disk, and someone works out from one of those disks what the secrets are, your case is a lot weaker. Independent discovery is, AFAIK, a defense against trade secret violations (and copyright, too, but not patents or trademarks).
Re:The DVDCCA have a point (Score:3, Informative)
For example:
http://www.lawguru.com/faq/19.5.html [lawguru.com]
Re:The DVDCCA have a point (Score:2)
x = 5.5 * y;
There, now I'll copyright that and I'm the only person that's allowed to multiply things by 5.4, because nobody else thought to copyright such a simple thing before so I was the first to do it, so the idea is all mine."
Plus, if you dissemate your information to *everyone* who makes DVD consoles and DVD software, with the only caveat being that they must not let users circumvent annoying features of DVD technology (like country codes and no-skip sections), then that hardly constitutes a "trade secret" even if it was a wonderful great new idea and not just an instance of an already known mathematical process.
Funny Storry (Score:5, Funny)
# 472-byte qrpff, Keith Winstein and Marc Horowitz
# MPEG 2 PS VOB file -> descrambled output on stdout.
# usage: perl -I
# where k1..k5 are the title key bytes in least to most-significant order
s''$/=\2048;while(){G=29;R=142;if((@a=unqT="C*"
b=map{ord qB8,unqb8,qT,_^$a[--D]}@INC;s/...$/1$Q=unqV,qb25,
)+=P+(~Fs/[D-HO-U_]/\$$s/q/pack+/g;
".
So of course I punched him.
Let's take it to the street (Score:5, Insightful)
The CBDTPA is actually very good for the movement to bring about the death of legislation like the DMCA. I saw a review of the CBDTPA in a roanoke paper about 2 weeks ago and it was really cool seeing a common newspaper make a big feature in its op-ed section about the CBDTPA. People trust newspapers a lot more than they trust websites. Newspapers cost money to produce (so do websites), but websites don't in the eyes of John Q. Citizen. Anyone can make a website is the general view, even though hosting a major website requires an assload of money to pay for bandwidth, high end equipment and a full time staff. Using the Internet to propagandize is not as easy as people think.
What we need are Win32 and OS X open source or free as in beer cd/dvd rippers that make defeating copy restrictions as easy as installing a new plugin. We need to force the issue by making the cartels so desparate they call for the complete destruction of individual property rights as they pertain to IP. The CBDTPA wasn't quite that, we need to get them so desparate that they propose something that makes it a felony to own a computer that can copy music and movies. We need to make John Q. Citizen so scared of their proposals that he says, "listen asshole, you have two choices, protect my rights or their bottom line. You know where I'm voting now!!" to their representatives out of anger and sheer rage. Essentially we need to take demagoguery to a new level, if you support these industries you are supporting your child's inevitable felony prison sentence for making a custom workout mix cd.
What we can do are the following
We must make these people look like absolute monsters to the public. We must find ways to associate RIAA/MPAA with the same feelings that most people reserve for Fascists and Communists. The average person must start looking at it from this perspective, "he is not advocating compensating people for their work, he is advocating the annihilation of my property rights." Once we have achieved that, we can effectively dismantle modern copywrong law and get it back to being constitutional copyright law.
Might as well put some content in this article (Score:2)
The article didn't mention the DMCA. They are trying to protect DeCSS as a 'trade secret.' Now, as I understand trade secret law, it is no longer a trade secret once it has been reverse engineered. So where do they get off making that claim?
The most important part? (Score:3, Informative)
In addition, the court found that DeCSS is "pure speech" for the purposes of First Amendment protection.
Say what you will about CA, our courts get it! This is from the CA State Appeals Court Ruling.
a different look (Score:2)
Perhaps it should read...
"The Electronic Frontier Foundation and the First Amendment Project today asked the California Supreme Court to uphold a lower court's decision to permit publication of the source code for DeCSS technology, which informs technically capable people how DVDs are encrypted."
Clarification... DeCSS by itself does not circumvent copy protection!!! Only the *abuse* of DeCSS during application does.
Technically inept people shouldn't be making decisions about technology they don't understand. For example, would I, a computer programmer, make critical decisions about launching the space shuttle? Probably not.
Go 2600 and stick it to 'em!
The real problem. (Score:2, Insightful)
In every other part of the Universe, it is the specific product which is patented. If you make a carbon copy of a Honda Accord, then you'll get sued. If you make a vehicle with four wheels, four doors and an engine, you won't. In academia, if you make a discovery, then some time later another person claims to have made the same discovery, that person -- except in rare cases -- you will be laughed out of town, but reproducing the same result via independent work is okay.
So, reproducing the DeCSS algorithm via independent work is okay via logical extension. As for breaking copyright protection, this is really governed by two laws: the so called "Betamax decision" from which the fair-use concept is derived, and by the DMCA. Although I don't know much about the DMCA, fair-use says that any particular consumer of media content can copy it limitlessly for backup, personal storage, alternate viewing, or whatever. Ripping a DVD to DIVX is perfectly legal, as long as you don't redistribute it and merely use it for personal viewing.
Reverse Engineering is Legal in California (Score:2)
You might be suprised to hear that. But consider what the point of the structure of patents is set up for - if you invent something, and you disclose your invention to the patent office, with instructions clear enough that someone "skilled in the art" can reproduce your invention, then you can be granted a patent.
Part of the idea is that once the patent expires, it goes into the public domain, along with explicit instructions for how to make your invention. Thus society as a whole ultimately benefits from the granting of a temporary monopoly.
Trade secrets are not legally protected monopolies, specifically because they don't provide the public benefit of putting the invention into the public domain.
What protection trade secrets have is a matter of keeping people honest. Someone who has signed a nondisclosure agreement is not allowed to disclose the invention, you can't steal it or bribe someone who knows it or whatever.
But reverse engineering is specifically allowed by california state law, and the law of all the other states as far as I know, in part because it provides a reason for inventors to patent stuff rather than keeping it secret - because that's the only way they can be granted a legal monopoly, and there is no protection from reverse engineering.
At least there wasn't before the DMCA, and I would argue the constitution makes the DMCA illegal, because it only allows for monopolies to be granted by the patent system. Copyrights are a form of monopoly too, but the constitution doesn't provide legal ground for maintaining copyrights by forbidding devices that can copy, it only forbids actually making copies without permission.
Re:DeCSS Should be Free to Distribute. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:DeCSS Should be Free to Distribute. (Score:2)
Well, to set the record straight, this is not entirely correct.
First of all, you _can_ copy a DVD if it is not CSS encrypted.
If a DVD is CSS encrypted, you can still copy the data, but it will remain CSS encrypted, and thus useless (e.g. it won't play normally) unless you have the keys to decrypt the data.
These keys are stored on the DVD disk, but are NOT directly accesible to the software (consider it a 'hidden' part on the disk). You need to enter into a dialog with the DVD player hardware, which requires the ability to crypt CSS data (aka DeCSS).
There are algorithms that brute-force find the keys, but in my experience they don't always work that well and are rather slow.
If you are thinking about copying DVDs with a DVD recorder, forget about it. a) the DVD keys will NOT be copied, so you end up with a useless DVD and b) a lot of DVDs are > 4.7GB (look at the spec for DVD recorders to see why that is a problem).
Of course what some people do is use a licensed software DVD decoder and pipe the output to an MPEG-4 encoder, but this is not a 100% accurate copy by any means.
So, esentially, to copy a DVD, DeCSS (or a derivative) is still very helpful.
Regarding playback: If you copied data from a CSS encrypted DVD to your harddrive, even a licensed DVD player will not play it back properly, because it would not be able to obtain the keys. The only way to do that is to decrypt the data before you run the licensed software player.
Lord of the Primes??? (Score:2, Funny)
watch lord of the rings, we now get this:
"One Prime to strip them all, One Prime to free them, One Prime to bring them all and on my OS see them."
Re:Lord of the Primes??? (Score:2)
Your
Where do I sign up?
Kintanon
Re:"Stolen" trade secret (Score:2)
Actualy the program itself was reverse engineered. However the encryption key was not. Keys are lisenced to publishers and hardware manufactures. Xing slipped and did not encrypt the key in one of their products. The key was lifted from the product. So in a nutshell, the key was not properly protected by one of the lisencees and is now widely published. Sorry for the lack of a link. I'm too busy reading slashdot to hunt up a link to the original article. It is only one of several keys that has been compromised. It may be possible in the future to release DVD's that do not use the key used by the Xing product. That would break DECSS and all Xing products.
Re:"Stolen" trade secret (Score:2)
This sort of mistake could have been avoided if they had open-sourced the alogirithm (though not the keys). I think somebody would have analyzed it and pointed out the defect.
Then they could have stopped that one key.
However I'm not sure if the plan, even if correctly implemented, is all that good. If a key is compromised and they stop using it, they prevent not only the programs with that key, but also any players that use that key. Forcing everybody who owns such a player to buy a new one may not be the best public relations, and I would expect some DVD publishers to just give up and even advertise their disks "works on older Kenwood DVD players" (or whatever was compromised). Possibly even the publishers have signed contracts saying they won't do this, but I still see an enormous public-relations backlash.
Re:FIRST ILLEGAL POST (Score:2)